Which Bible Version can you recommend (KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc)

[saved34]

10 hours ago, ghtan said:

Don't do that. The NIV is a good translation, especially if this is your first bible. Those "missing" verses are usually found in the NIV as footnotes; hence they are not really missing. Why don't you check whether those verses are also missing in the other recognised translations e.g. ESV, NASB, NRSV, NLT, etc.? I think you will find they too have them as footnotes or within brackets, i.e. they agree with the NIV. Then ask yourself whether it is more likely that all those versions are wrong and only KJV right. Logic dictates that it is the converse.   

Yeah, the NIV is great. Lol it gets trashed by many Christians but its solid. I know it has helped me tremendously, but I will always cherish my Kjv. 

[gdemoss]

I first was hard core KJV only guy because that is what the guy was who broght me to Christ. 

As I grew up, I began to see my error as well as why I had them.  The point of the bible is to bring man into a relationship with God and improve his understanding of the character of God.

That said, the bible itself declares that we can have the perfect words of God yet twist them all up to our own destruction.  So I worry much less about translations than I do heart conditions of people.  I have found most KJV onlyists to be in major doctrinal error though they have a wonderful translation. I know I was.

My grandfather passed away and I have his the living bible paraphrase and oh wow was that a trip to read!

 

[ghtan]

3 hours ago, Willa said:

The difference between KJV, NKJV, ALT and WEB is that these are based on the Majority (Byzantine) Greek text while the other are based on the Catholic texts which came from No. Africa and Egypt.  These, while earlier, may also be influenced by the gnostic mysticism that was prevalent in that area.  That is why many people feel verses were left out of these bibles.  The modern translators believe that shorter is better.  I don't subscribe to that philosophy, especially when even earlier Church Fathers quoted the missing verses in their debates with heretics like Origen from Egypt.  

I think it too simplistic to say that modern translators believe shorter is better. We should give them more credit than that. Btw, please provide some examples of the early church fathers citing scripture that are now missing in the NIV. I'd be interested. Thanks.

[other one]

5 hours ago, Davidjayjordan said:

So are Christians HERE allowed to differ according to what Bible they read ?

Do you mean there is a controversy as to which one is the right translation ? to get the right interpretation ?

Actually I use an interlinear with both the textus receptus and Nestlé manuscripts....  along with several interlinked study guides such as encyclopedias dictionaries and commentaries.  That is much more enlightening than 17th century english...

 

[other one]

The 1972 version of the NASB is the closest thing word for word that I have found comparing to my interlinked and is easy to read.

[Lavender]

3 hours ago, Willa said:

NKJV is a good one to get as a second.  But you can download many versions on line and just read many others there.  Our church's school used NIV for their grade school because it is easier to understand.  But our church uses NKJV because it is more literal.  The chart below gives an idea, but some of the bibles use different Greek texts.  The KJV and NKJV are most accurate to the majority text, which many of us consider to be the most accurate text.   Stay away from those listed in italics.  

   

Thanks for that information Willa.  I prefer to buy a Bible than to read them on line.  I am going to buy a NKJV and have my current NIV as my second Bible.

[Willa]

3 hours ago, ghtan said:

I think it too simplistic to say that modern translators believe shorter is better. We should give them more credit than that. Btw, please provide some examples of the early church fathers citing scripture that are now missing in the NIV. I'd be interested. Thanks.

The two biggest criteria to accept a manuscript, fragment etc. are the earliest date and the fewest words.   I might add that there is little difference between Westcott's text based largely on Siniaticus and the Byzantine or Syrian Majority text when it comes to numbers of variations.

Wikipedia on Textual Criticism excerpts:  

External evidence[edit]

External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred-- For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one.

Internal evidence[edit]

Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.  Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "same endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homeoarchy refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.^[18]

 

The only text omitted by the church fathers discussions was 1 John 5:7.  Most were quoted I think by Irenaeus and Tertullian since they were apologists countering gnosticism but my memory is not good enough to give you exact quotes.  There were several heresies dealt with by various church fathers..

[ghtan]

57 minutes ago, Willa said:

The two biggest criteria to accept a manuscript, fragment etc. are the earliest date and the fewest words.   I might add that there is little difference between Westcott's text based largely on Siniaticus and the Byzantine or Syrian Majority text when it comes to numbers of variations.

Wikipedia on Textual Criticism excerpts:  

External evidence[edit]

External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred-- For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one.

Internal evidence[edit]

Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.  Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "same endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homeoarchy refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.^[18]

 

The only text omitted by the church fathers discussions was 1 John 5:7.  Most were quoted I think by Irenaeus and Tertullian since they were apologists countering gnosticism but my memory is not good enough to give you exact quotes.  There were several heresies dealt with by various church fathers..

Sounds like a good reason to prefer the shorter reading, doesn't it? And they do use other criteria too.

If the church fathers never mentioned 1 John 5:7, doesn't that imply those words were added by a later scribe? Can certainly understand why he would do so. But doesn't that mean the KJV - which includes 1 John 5:7 - reflects a reading that is not original?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Butero

   Hey my Brother,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well,I don't know you to be "rigid" but in fact to be "firmly" established in the Word of God and very easy to talk to,pretty "open " & always a good & considerate listener,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmm,am I biased,yeah -lol

  Anyway,great advice & the same thing I suggested,I even suggested "parallel" reading,,,,get both a KJV & a NKJV & seek GOD,He will show Sweet lavender great & wonderful things!!!!!                Praise the Lord!                       With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Willa]

1.  1 John was the only verse among all of those in question that was not mentioned.  This gives credence that we should not trust the versions that leave all the others out.

2.  I am more likely to leave things out when I am copying.  Perhaps you add things?  I don't .  And I do write in margins as well.  

3.  A more difficult reading is just as likely to be due to an error in copying.  I have also done this many times.  So things I copy, especially by hand, often don't make sense.  When I go back I find it due to an error in copying such as reading a word wrong, using an incorrect letter in spelling, or omitting a word or part of a word.  

4. In the case of the oldest complete manuscript found in Alexandria Egypt, it was also the most influenced by gnosticism.  It is like reading the New World Translation which changed and left out words to fit their doctrine.  This manuscript, in the opinion of many, had the same problem.  So while Siniaticus is in the same family, it is more like the Byzantine fragments than is alexandrinus.   

Of course, that is my opinion but it is based on the textual criticism of others who have made excellent cases.